There hasn't seemed to be any additional market push on these types of sets recently. Perhaps we'll hear more at CES...or perhaps its DoA right now. Which makes more sense, consumers are not ready for an entirely new technology and I think they've got upgrade fatigue in the TV world. People used to go 15, 20 or more years with the same TV. Upgrading every 3 to 5 years as if it were a laptop or cell phone doesn't sit well with most consumers.

So 4K on a 40" for you then? Or 1080p looks great on a 32"? Unless of course you are sitting 2' away.

Be wary of absolute statements like "any size"

Good quality print is 300+ DPI. With a quad HD display (essentially 4K) it needs to be 14.7" to reach 300 PPI. As far as displays go, Apple seem to be leading with their 330 PPI iPhone 4 screen.

Standard computer monitors are currently around 100 PPI, and thanks to companies like Apple pushing for higher quality imaging, it looks like we might finally be seeing higher resolution displays in the near future (1-3 years) as they have added support for 200 PPI displays to their recently released 10.7 operating system, and there is talk of a 2048x1536 iPad being released next year. (263 PPI) People say that it's silly to go that high, but when viewing the white-on-black text used by this forum, I'd say that the need for a higher resolution display (it's currently 130 PPI) was obvious.

For too long now, we have been stuck with low resolution displays - with a small number of exceptions, anything over 21" is basically 1920x1080 now, thanks to HDTV. IBM were selling 200 PPI LCDs back in 2001, but we've yet to have anything approach that since.

Even at 22" there are clear benefits from using a 1080p native display when showing 1080p video, compared to showing it on a lower resolution screen the same size. Remember back when most HDTVs were 1366x768 and everyone was saying there was no need for 1080p under 50"? Now that 1080p is affordable at all screen sizes, we have a wide selection of 1080p source material, and people have had a chance to see for themselves, no-one says that any more. It will be the same thing with 4K.

Once we have 4K sources, all displays should move towards 4K resolutions regardless of size. At 44" a quad HD (4K) display is still only 100 PPI. At 22" it would be 200 PPI which is exactly where PC displays are currently headed....

Let's not forget that the future is convergence, and so your HDTV may not just be used to watch films.

Now of course, there are limits to the human vision system, so you do need to have the screen filling a large field of view to benefit for the resolution. To completely resolve 4K, you need to be sitting at roughly 0.8x the diagonal, which is fairly close with a 40" display. But current display technology is not perfect and so we have gaps between the pixels, making their resolution more discernible than theoretical numbers might suggest.

The human visual system is complex, and can actually outresolve these resolution limits - the eye is not stationary. It turns out that you actually need about double the resolution limit of the human visual system to fool it into not thinking you're looking at a screen, so there would be benefits from 4K much further out.

And most people sit too far from their TVs, or buy screens that are too small. If 4K means we see a push for larger displays, or people sitting closer, I don't think that is a bad thing. Ideally you would be sitting at two screen heights (roughly 1 diagonal with 16:9) away from the screen, which is well within the range of 4K being beneficial. Even 60-70" screens are too small for a lot of homes, where people should really be using projectors.

I think it's interesting that I have been saying that for years, and now Sony have announced a new head-mounted display which gives a 45° field of view. It would have been far easier for them to go with a smaller FOV (most HMDs are 30° or less) but they decided this was ideal - and it's exactly two screen heights. (or roughly 1 diagonal - 750" virtual image at 790" viewing distance)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

There hasn't seemed to be any additional market push on these types of sets recently. Perhaps we'll hear more at CES...or perhaps its DoA right now. Which makes more sense, consumers are not ready for an entirely new technology and I think they've got upgrade fatigue in the TV world. People used to go 15, 20 or more years with the same TV. Upgrading every 3 to 5 years as if it were a laptop or cell phone doesn't sit well with most consumers.

What you're saying is essentially the concept behind retina display. But retina display PPI is applicable for mobile phones, tablet and maybe notebook or PC viewing where the eyes are < 2' from the screen.

Videophiles sit around 6' away and most of us >10' away. The interchangeability of resolution vs distance is well known. So at those distance, size of TV has to be larger.

The other issue is of course when will we see 4k NATIVE content or broadcast, which has been discussed in this thread.

PS Panny already had a 4k TV... but no one noticed except that it is 152"

"The other issue is of course when will we see 4k NATIVE content or broadcast, which has been discussed in this thread."

And yet, as I've explained, that isn't a very important issue for numerous reasons.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)

There's a giant difference between 4x scaling of 1080p sources and ~10x scaling of crappy sources. In the former case, 4k x 2k displays will make an immediate improvement and impact. In the latter case, no display can turn garbage into gold.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)

There's a giant difference between 4x scaling of 1080p sources and ~10x scaling of crappy sources. In the former case, 4k x 2k displays will make an immediate improvement and impact. In the latter case, no display can turn garbage into gold.

Meaning NTSC/PAL should just be scaled 2X rather than go through all the hassle of 720p, 1080i and blu ray?

NATIVE is more than what goes into the display. It involves scanning, encoding, compression, transmission, scaling, etc the whole chain. Without native 4k, 4k TV will be a "feature" not an improvement.

What you're saying is essentially the concept behind retina display. But retina display PPI is applicable for mobile phones, tablet and maybe notebook or PC viewing where the eyes are < 2' from the screen.

Videophiles sit around 6' away and most of us >10' away. The interchangeability of resolution vs distance is well known. So at those distance, size of TV has to be larger.

Right, but at 6ft you would ideally have a 72" display, regardless of resolution. It just happens that 4K is also a good match for that viewing distance. (some would say ideal)

If 4K brings down the price of larger screens and pushes people towards buying the correct screen size, that's a good thing in my opinion. While 72" would be ideal, there are still benefits from 4K down to half that size.

Once you get to screen sizes below 40" there will be a big increase in the number of screens used not only as televisions but also computer monitors, for games systems etc. where people will be sitting closer and the resolution improvement will be just as apparent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by specuvestor

The other issue is of course when will we see 4k NATIVE content or broadcast, which has been discussed in this thread.

Broadcast is unlikely, but I'm sure that once we have more displays out there, source content will come along, possibly via digital distribution. And as I keep saying, the future is in convergence. There are clear benefits from an increase in resolution with other connected devices, (computers, games, cameras etc.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by specuvestor

PS Panny already had a 4k TV... but no one noticed except that it is 152"

I seem to remember people saying that they could see "seams" on those displays up close, and it was really made up of four 1080p panels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13

Are you telling me that you can see 2.000.000 pixels when you watch TV on a 40 inch? Don't think so.

I absolutely can see aliasing and the "screen door effect" on 1080p displays. While its less noticeable with film, it's very obvious I'd you have ever had a computer or game source hooked up to the TV. (and the future is convergence, so this is more likely to happen)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13

Pixels are not visible from proper viewing distance, thats all whats matters.

Define "proper viewing distance". At 2-3 screen heights (the closest I have seen to a hard spec) pixels absolutely are visible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13

Every few years they come up with a new picture ''enhancement'', stuff like this is build into TVs because they want us to buy TVs more often than we want to so they can make mo money.

You are not forced to buy a 4K display, just like anyone who bought a "720p" HDTV was not forced to buy a 1080p screen. That doesn't mean we should stop progress.

meaning ntsc/pal should just be scaled 2x rather than go through all the hassle of 720p, 1080i and blu ray?

Native is more than what goes into the display. It involves scanning, encoding, compression, transmission, scaling, etc the whole chain. Without native 4k, 4k tv will be a "feature" not an improvement.

I absolutely can see aliasing and the "screen door effect" on 1080p displays. While its less noticeable with film, it's very obvious I'd you have ever had a computer or game source hooked up to the TV. (and the future is convergence, so this is more likely to happen)

I would like to limit this discussion to cable, sat and movie watching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist;

Define "proper viewing distance". At 2-3 screen heights (the closest I have seen to a hard spec) pixels absolutely are visible.

I'd say 40'+ minimum distance 8 feet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist;

You are not forced to buy a 4K display, just like anyone who bought a "720p" HDTV was not forced to buy a 1080p screen. That doesn't mean we should stop progress.

4K reminds me of x.v.color, even though my TV can handle x.v.color there never will be x.v.color content (there is some camcorder x.v.color stuff, thats all) so its a hoax .

Meaning NTSC/PAL should just be scaled 2X rather than go through all the hassle of 720p, 1080i and blu ray?

NATIVE is more than what goes into the display. It involves scanning, encoding, compression, transmission, scaling, etc the whole chain. Without native 4k, 4k TV will be a "feature" not an improvement.

NTSC has a bit-rate equivalent of .2GB per hour. BluRay has 25GB per hour. Again, I would beg you to stop equating the two. Upscaling BluRays to 4k vs. upscaling NTSC/PAL is not remotely the same. The former will be a great stopgap.

By the way, upscaling DVDs to 720p and 1080p is still pretty amazing. Because there is enough image data to work with. Yes, fortunately we have better sources. But the old sources don't magically go away even with no displays.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)

I would like to limit this discussion to cable, sat and movie watching.

Why? Because it's all you use? I don't even have a broadcast source hooked up to any of the TVs in my house. Why would I want to pay a company for content where 15 minutes out of every hour is advertising?

My only source for films Blu-ray. For television shows, I can use online streaming services. (but I rarely watch anything that isn't on Blu-ray)
YouTube has had 4K content for over a year now.
All our family photographs are over 8 megapixels in size.
Other than film, my primary use for the display is as a monitor which is used to display text, edit images and play games. All of which immediately benefits from 4K.

Once 4K displays are widely available, 4K content will show up. The source material is already 4K, it just needs a distribution method, which could be entirely digital to begin with, rather than needing a new disc format.

For most people, the tv is no longer a box that sits in the corner and is only turned on to watch the news or watch an hour-long drama, it's the centre of all their digital entertainment. Even without 4K video content, there are benefits to having a 4K display.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13

I'd say 40'+ minimum distance 8 feet.

Minimum 8ft? That only fills about 10% of your vision!
No wonder you are so opposed to 4K, you won't even be seeing the full benefit of 1080p there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13

4K reminds me of x.v.color, even though my TV can handle x.v.color there never will be x.v.color content (there is some camcorder x.v.color stuff, thats all) so its a hoax .

NTSC has a bit-rate equivalent of .2GB per hour. BluRay has 25GB per hour. Again, I would beg you to stop equating the two. Upscaling BluRays to 4k vs. upscaling NTSC/PAL is not remotely the same. The former will be a great stopgap.

By the way, upscaling DVDs to 720p and 1080p is still pretty amazing. Because there is enough image data to work with. Yes, fortunately we have better sources. But the old sources don't magically go away even with no displays.

I agree strongly. My Lumagen Radiance vp makes even Amazon downloads of 480i Sherlock Holmes watchable on a 65" screen. Also, conversion of current HD TV to 4K and BD as well will be REALLY expensive and take a long time if it ever happens. Good upconverts to 4K will be a good substitute on large screens.

I agree strongly. My Lumagen Radiance vp makes even Amazon downloads of 480i Sherlock Holmes watchable on a 65" screen. Also, conversion of current HD TV to 4K and BD as well will be REALLY expensive and take a long time if it ever happens. Good upconverts to 4K will be a good substitute on large screens.

We discussed why there isn't more powerful VP in a TV, be it Lumagen, anchor bay or Nvidia earlier in this thread, even though the technology is already there. Besides price there is the power consumption consideration.

Those with no issue on scaling (which includes stretching 4:3 or 21:9 to fit 16:9) are also unlikely to have issue on MCFI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogo

Upscaling BluRays to 4k vs. upscaling NTSC/PAL is not remotely the same. The former will be a great stopgap.

Yes the keyword is "stopgap" which I agree. My posts does not indicate I believe 4k is not viable, it says we need 1) 4k content 2) means of transferring the content, from studio to medium 3) Koreans and Taiwanese to jump into the bandwagon when they see 1) and 2) happening which likely would include proliferation of huge TV.

I'm just skeptical people are too optimistic on the timeframe with Japanese launching 4k TV. IMHO timeframe of sizable adoption of 4k would be similar to HD transition from SD, if not longer. Reason being the infrastructure has just shifted to HD so on a cost/benefit basis medium companies will not want to move so quickly. We've seen similar optimism in 3G since 1997 just after GPRS and EDGE was launched before it finally came to pass.

TV set makers OTOH has much more marketing incentive to move earlier than it should. About half of TV next year would be 3D enabled and if you base on that one might say 3D is gaining acceptance. But that's not what the box office is saying. It will be a "feature".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Film is already shot/scanned at 4K or greater, the content exists.

They will need to be remastered into a 4k Blu Ray or equivalent. There are also tons of materials still at 2k scan (or worse) including the upcoming star wars blu ray.

My wife's $150 camera can shoot a 10MP picture but does not mean the PQ is better than a DSLR 4MP shot.

That's the point Spec... There will be tens of millions more 3D TVs than people watching them in 3D by next years. Fine, so be it. By 2015, either the content will compel viewing in 3D or, quite frankly, 3D will be gone But by then the US alone will have ~50 3D households. That's more than enough to make content for. So either it's going to make it or it won't

Similarly, 4k x 2k TV will be in a lot of homes doing nothing but upconverting HD for years before there is much 4k content. So be it. It'll be marketed as a feature in the meantime. And some of us are going to get a lot out of it even before the content shows up. In various ways.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)

Yes the keyword is "stopgap" which I agree. My posts does not indicate I believe 4k is not viable, it says we need 1) 4k content 2) means of transferring the content, from studio to medium 3) Koreans and Taiwanese to jump into the bandwagon when they see 1) and 2) happening which likely would include proliferation of huge TV.

We have 4K content. Lots of Blu-rays are produced from 4K scans, some are even 8K scans. YouTube has had 4K support for over a year now, showing that digital distribution is viable. (I wouldn't want to pay for YouTube quality but it proves that it can work)

Most cameras are at least 8MP these days, so your family photos etc. will all take advantage of 4K displays.

PC / Games content immediately benefits from 4K resolution displays.

Passive/glasses-free 3DTVs can maintain full 1080p resolution with 4K displays rather than half resolution as current TVs do.

1080p content was scarce when 1080p displays were launched, now it is commonplace. I can't think of the last time I viewed something that wasn't 1080p on my screen. The displays come first, then the content.

I'm also really interested in seeing what Blu-ray upconverted to 4K looks like. You can always just quadruple the pixels to essentially match a 1080p screen, albeit one with a less visible pixel structure, but I'm interested in seeing what more advanced upscaling algorithms can do. There are some very interesting HTPC options for upscaling now which can do some impressive things with DVD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by specuvestor

TV set makers OTOH has much more marketing incentive to move earlier than it should. About half of TV next year would be 3D enabled and if you base on that one might say 3D is gaining acceptance. But that's not what the box office is saying. It will be a "feature".

And supporting 3D has finally got TV manufacturers off their ass to address flat-panel motion handling, because it is required for good 3D quality with active displays. We have new fast decay phosphor plasmas and LCDs that finally look good when things are moving as a result.

The display processing hardware inside 3DTVs has to be more capable, and even fairly low-end displays now also have fantastic colour reproduction as a result of using the same processing as higher-end screens.

You might not care about 3D (I own a 3DTV and never use 3D) but it's improved the baseline for TV quality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by specuvestor

They will need to be remastered into a 4k Blu Ray or equivalent. There are also tons of materials still at 2k scan (or worse) including the upcoming star wars blu ray.

Lucas loves to do that though. He's late to adopt new formats and does the bare minimum he can to get you to buy it, but leave the option open for re-releasing the films again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by specuvestor

My wife's $150 camera can shoot a 10MP picture but does not mean the PQ is better than a DSLR 4MP shot.

A 4MP DSLR still outresolves current displays 2x. (and all my photos are taken with 10-16MP DSLRs)

Minimum 8ft? That only fills about 10% of your vision!
No wonder you are so opposed to 4K, you won't even be seeing the full benefit of 1080p there.

I'd like to sit closer but limitations of technologie (source +displaytech) forcess me to sit further away, i want to watch TV not artifacts etc..

I want to add that even from 3 feet you will lose detail, any distance is a compromise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Film is already shot/scanned at 4K or greater, the content exists.

We ain't gonna see 4K broadcasts or 4K blurays this decade in Europe/North-America, we probably ain't gonna see 4K broadcasts or or 4K blurays in our lifetime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogo;

By the way,upscaling DVDs to 720p and 1080p is still pretty amazing. Because there is enough image data to work with. Yes, fortunately we have better sources. But the old sources don't magically go away even with no displays.

Each time i switch from bluray - i've seen a lot of blurays - to dvd i feel kind of depressed, on of the things i hate about HD is upscaling.

I'd like to sit closer but limitations of technologie (source +displaytech) forcess me to sit further away, i want to watch TV not artifacts etc..

So why are you opposed to 4K? That's exactly what higher resolution displays and sources are for!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13

I want to add that even from 3 feet you will lose detail, any distance is a compromise.

Viewing distance is entirely dependant on screen size. Ideal for 4K is sitting one screen diagonal away, and there are benefits out to at least double that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13

We ain't gonna see 4K broadcasts or 4K blurays this decade in Europe/North-America, we probably ain't gonna see 4K broadcasts or or 4K blurays in our lifetime.

Broadcast? Probably not. I don't know of anywhere broadcasting 1080p even, or 24p signals. But who cares about broadcast? The quality is poor and it's full of advertising.

As I have said many times already, YouTube has had 4K video support for over a year now. The quality of this is better than any broadcast HD material I have seen. Who says that 4K material has to be supplied on a disc? Digital is the future and YouTube have shown that 4K digital distribution is viable.

What makes you so sure that we will not have any method for 4K film distribution for a decade?

BDXL supports 128GB discs, Pioneer have shown 400GB prototype discs. Without requiring an entirely new format (just new players) we could have 4K distributed on disc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13

Each time i switch from bluray - i've seen a lot of blurays - to dvd i feel kind of depressed, on of the things i hate about HD is upscaling.

Would you rather they were not upscaled? The problem with most DVDs is that they are interlaced, have low bit-rates, are not 24p (a HTPC can fix that) use MPEG2, are often full of ringing and mosquito noise. Most Blu-ray discs are of a much higher standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Auditor55

4K TV is superflous. I can't believe people are actually looking forward to this for HT apps.

Why not? If you are looking for a "home theatre" experience, you will be sitting at a distance where 4K makes a difference. Otherwise you're just "watching TV".

So why are you opposed to 4K? That's exactly what higher resolution displays and sources are for!

4K is just one element you also have to deal with display tech limitations and source imperfections. For non gigantic displays better quality of the source would probably be a bigger improvement than more pixels. Better source quality is more important to me also 50' is my max.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist;

Broadcast? Probably not. I don't know of anywhere broadcasting 1080p even, or 24p signals. But who cares about broadcast? The quality is poor and it's full of advertising.

- broadcast is -and will be important for billions of people may years to come.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist;

What makes you so sure that we will not have any method for 4K film distribution for a decade?

4K movies main importance will be for moviemakers and movietheater, we ain't gonna see 4K movies any day soon in tha house IMO.

4K is just one element you also have to deal with display tech limitations and source imperfections. For non gigantic displays better quality of the source would probably be a bigger improvement than more pixels. Better source quality is more important to me also 50' is my max.

A well mastered Blu-ray is about as good as you could hope to achieve at 1080p, short of introducing a new spec whch expands the gamut and bit-depth. (this is less likely to happen than 4K becoming widespread)

An increase in resolution and improved encoding provides better image quality, even at the same bitrate. Macroblocking is far smaller at higher resolutions.

DVD at 480i, 7mbps MPEG2 looks far worse than 7mbps MPEG4 HD content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13

- broadcast is -and will be important for billions of people may years to come.

Broadcast still hasn't caught up to current display technology, when discussing 4K displays & sources, broadcast isn't really a consideration. It looks awful regardless of the resolution because they need to cram in 500 channels into a limited space.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13

All i'm saying is that upscaling sucks.

Why does it suck?

DVD looks far better in 2011 than it ever did 15 years ago.

With HTPCs you can weave the frames together to make a 480p image, use advanced scaling algorithms to make the best of the available resolution, and play the film back at the correct 24Hz refresh rate without 3:2 judder.

A well mastered Blu-ray is about as good as you could hope to achieve at 1080p, short of introducing a new spec whch expands the gamut and bit-depth. (this is less likely to happen than 4K becoming widespread)
An increase in resolution and improved encoding provides better image quality, even at the same bitrate. Macroblocking is far smaller at higher resolution
DVD at 480i, 7mbps MPEG2 looks far worse than 7mbps MPEG4 HD content.

i'm talking about 48fps - improvements in fast movement, and there is lots of fast movement in any content, just throw your hand in the air and you've got fast movement -.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Broadcast still hasn't caught up to current display technology, when discussing 4K displays & sources, broadcast isn't really a consideration. It looks awful regardless of the resolution because they need to cram in 500 channels into a limited space.

What are people suppost to watch when they buy a 4K TV? Most people who buy such a TV watch cable or satellite like most people do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Why does it suck?
DVD looks far better in 2011 than it ever did 15 years ago.
With HTPCs you can weave the frames together to make a 480p image, use advanced scaling algorithms to make the best of the available resolution, and play the film back at the correct 24Hz refresh rate without 3:2 judder.

Dvds aren't as vibrant and don't have the depth i see when i watch blurays, you can artificially enhance dvds whatever you want it allways will be poor mans bluray. I'm used to bluray quality nowadays so dvd quality sucks.

I'm floored at the ignorance of upscaling here. It's like modern history has been forgotten. When the first upscaling DVD players came out, people on AVS were wetting themselves over how great the picture was. Memories are so short.

Ah well, the proof of the pudding will again be in the eating.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)

i'm talking about 48fps - improvements in fast movement, and there is lots of fast movement in any content, just throw your hand in the air and you've got fast movement -.

48 fps would require entirely new cameras to shoot films on, new post-production methods etc. Only films shot from now onwards could support it. Even if they stuck to 1080p resolution, it would require new displays and players for playback.

Conversely, films are already being shot/scanned at 4K. The gamut and bit-depth of film already exceeds the 8-bit Rec.709 we have with Blu-ray.

4K content already exists, you just need the displays and a distribution method for it. Nothing currently exists for 48fps. (except whatever James Cameron might be playing around with for Avatar 2)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13

What are people suppost to watch when they buy a 4K TV? Most people who buy such a TV watch cable or satellite like most people do.

If all you watch is cable or satellite, it's almost not worth your while owning a 1080p screen. Broadcast is crap. I don't really understand why you keep turning up here, if you only care about broadcast.

More and more people are dropping their cable/satellite providers these days in favour of online services. HD games consoles are eating up more entertainment time. It's a declining market, and they don't even keep up with current technology. If you're lucky, broadcast might move to 1080p and support 24fps some time within the next 10 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13

Dvds aren't as vibrant and don't have the depth i see when i watch blurays, you can artificially enhance dvds whatever you want it allways will be poor mans bluray. I'm used to bluray quality nowadays so dvd quality sucks.

Well of course DVD is never going to look as good as Blu-ray. The point being made is that a DVD upscaled to 1080p looks much better than it ever did originally.

If Blu-ray upscaled to 4K benefits the same way that DVD benefits from being upscaled to 1080p, then you already have a compelling reason to buy a 4K display before there is a wide selection of 4K native content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogo

I'm floored at the ignorance of upscaling here. It's like modern history has been forgotten. When the first upscaling DVD players came out, people on AVS were wetting themselves over how great the picture was. Memories are so short.

I'm really curious to see how Blu-ray looks upscaled. I don't think it will be as dramatic a difference as DVD. Part of what upscaling DVD players did to improve the image so much was doing a much better job of deinterlacing than the display, and having a digital connection. Most Blu-rays are not interlaced, and TVs usually do an ok job of deinterlacing now.

Just to sidetrack a bit: epic like star wars and LOTR (non Lucas) uses "modern" CGI at 2k. They are not going to be scanned at 4k. It will be interpolated at best ie scaled. And scaling using industrial scalers non-realtime are not the same as scaling on our inbuilt Mstar TV scalers on-the-fly.

To say there is content at 4k is strictly speaking true just as saying there are 3D content. You can also say there is also 8k scans like Baraka but all means little to the vast Hollywood content.

You can post this 4k scan availability question on AVS Blu Ray forum but do expect some ridicule GOOD remastering with adequate transport and medium is really not so simple, with tons of legacy baggage. They are still clearing the baggage with blu ray, with some success and some flops but most admit that most content will never even get a chance to be remastered or restored. Not sure if they got time on their hands to do 4k releases so soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

We have 4K content. Lots of Blu-rays are produced from 4K scans, some are even 8K scans. YouTube has had 4K support for over a year now, showing that digital distribution is viable. (I wouldn't want to pay for YouTube quality but it proves that it can work)

Most cameras are at least 8MP these days, so your family photos etc. will all take advantage of 4K displays.

PC / Games content immediately benefits from 4K resolution displays.

Passive/glasses-free 3DTVs can maintain full 1080p resolution with 4K displays rather than half resolution as current TVs do.

1080p content was scarce when 1080p displays were launched, now it is commonplace. I can't think of the last time I viewed something that wasn't 1080p on my screen. The displays come first, then the content.

For sure PC will be the first to take up the 4k challenge, especially when their image is rendered. They should be the key in guesstimating 4k adoption, just as they went 1080p far ahead of TVs. But realistically what is the max resolution of LCD monitors and graphics card nowadays "again"?

It will take more than some time...

My post #61 in this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by specuvestor

@rogo on tweener resolution: ideally I totally agree with you. But practically they will scale resolution up slowly just as the "HDReady" format of 1024-1366 before reaching 1920 due to existing content, equipments, learning curve etc